Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
STATION
CNN 12
CNNW 12
CSPAN 12
WTTG 6
KGO (ABC) 5
CNBC 4
WJLA (ABC) 4
WMAR (ABC) 4
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
WBAL (NBC) 3
WGN (CW) 3
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 104
Search Results 100 to 103 of about 104
as president is to apply the same principles. >> that's president obama from the debate this week on the role of government. now let's listen to his challenger, mitt romney, with his answer to that question. >> first, life and liberty. we have a responsibility to protect the life and liberty of our people and that means military second to none. i do not believe in cutting the military. i believe in maintaining the strength of america's military. second, in the line that says we are in doubt by our creator with rights i believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. that statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with a right to pursue happiness as we choose. i interpret that as one, making sure those are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared for by one another. we're a nation that believes we're children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties. those that are older and have problems and those that are disabled. we care for them and we look for innovation and all these things desired out of the ameri
-assad. thank you. [applause] >> today, mitt romney gives a speech on u.s. foreign policy at the u.s. virginia military policy institute. live coverage begins at 11:20 eastern time on the c-span. see the vice-presidential debate this thursday night live on the c-span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. next q&a. then live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." mitt romney will give a speech on foreign policy at 11:20 a.m.. >> this week on "q&a," 12-time emmy award-winning morley safer discusses his long career with cbs news and his 40 years as a correspondent on "60 minutes." >> morley safer -- how have you changed your approach to information over the last 42 years of "60 minutes?" >> no dramatic difference in terms of reporting the news or doing interviews for the news or, really, even between doing what is construed as hard news versus feature stuff. the same rules apply. you try to get to the core, the core of the individual. i think really that is why we have an audience for the last 45 years on "60 minutes." i think it is precisely why people watch the broadcast. we h
for the first presidential debate on wednesday and the chairman will join us live to give us a preview of how governor romney is preparing. >>> we have the q4 playbook with a man that manages nearly $400 billion and cheryl sandberg second in command of facebook speaking out about the ipo and the future of the company and more of our exclusive interview with her and more in the next hour. >>> we'll start with the markets. it is the first trading day of the fourth quarter after rising 6% in q3 and our markets poised for more gains. our cash is director of floor operations with ubs and joins us this morning. good morning. nice way to kick this quarter off. >> nice way, yes. >> hard to tell what it is attributed, and evans comments today clearly dovish and ism better than expected. what's at work here? >> we started out with a little booster shot out of europe. asia was not as strong as some people had hoped. then europe had had some data that looked on the face of it to be perhaps even mediocre, but it was interpreted to be not as bad as people had worried about and not indicative of europe's sl
has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. president romney might well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute. but it does not seem that kind of social conservative question has a lot of civilians in something like a presidential debate. other than health care, i can't see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. here is why. no major national political figure has attack affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it's remarkable. the republicans who during the nineties for a while were seeing some political profit in attacking affirmative action don't do it anymore. the democrats, john kerry in the early '90s and some others said maybe it's time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down the road. but that's all gone. i have spoken to a republican politician, why is that? the answer was we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it's not worth the cost or the hassle. part of it was there is an incredibly bitter campaign in california over proposition 209 which b
Search Results 100 to 103 of about 104